ABSTRACT

Having suggested that any particular classificatory scheme of potential or actual inadequacies in arguments involves an optional selection of criteria against which to categorize items in the area of concern, and adding that fitness for purposes in hand is the superordinate consideration for selecting which to use, it is timely to offer some illustrations of how arguments about substantive matters are conducted and show wherein inadequacies are found. Inasmuch as errors and weaknesses can take on an infinite number of possibilities, and these will vary in use with the arena being considered and the particular contemporary cultural conventions as to what kind and extent of weaknesses and errors are acceptable, any sampling of topics and systems is finally arbitrary. However, this is not to say that the arenas selected here are chosen at random. Each of the first three arenas selected for consideration has a rationale. The fourth, that of government itself, is a special and superordinate case involving all domains of knowledge. Otherwise, the scope is confined to matters empirical for several reasons.